Bangalore District Court
4. Name Of The Rajesh vs S/O.Devendrappa on 13 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
Dated this the 13th day of October 2015.
Present : Sri.D. Puttaswamy, B.A., LL.B.
VIII ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
C.C. NO. 9402 of 2013
JUDGMENT U/S 355 OF THE Cr.P.C. 1973.
1. Sl. No. of the Case 9402/2013
2. The date of 27/12/2012
commission of the
offence
3. Name of the State by Sanjay Nagar P.S.
complainant
4. Name of the Rajesh
accused S/o.Devendrappa,
35 years, No.4, 4th Cross, MSR
Nagar, Bengaluru.
5. The offence U/sec.448, 427, 504, 354, 324,
complained of or 506 of IPC.
proved
6. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
and his
examination
7. Final Order Acting U/sec. 248(1) Cr.PC
Accused is acquitted.
8. Date of such order 13/10/2015
For the following:-
2
JUDGMENT
This is the charge sheet filed by the PSI, Sanjay Nagar P.S. against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.448, 427, 504, 354, 324, 506 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 27/12/2012 at about 11.30 a.m. accused committed criminal tress-pass into CW.1's Beauty Parlour, situated at New BEL Road, which is situated within jurisdiction of Sanjay Nagar P.S., picked up quarrel with CW.1 with regard to money matter and broken the glasses, which were attached at CW.1's Beauty Parlour thereby caused loss to CW.1 and abused CW.1 in filthy language knowingly such insult will provoke breach of peace. Further, accused misbehaved with CW.1 and tried to outrage her modesty in public, assaulted with bottle on the right hand of CW.1 thereby caused bleeding injuries and threatened CW.1 with dire consequences thus committed criminal intimidation and thereby committed the alleged offences.3
3. Accused is on bail. As required u/sec.207 of Cr.PC, the copies of the charge sheet papers were furnished to the accused. The accused on framing the charges, denied the charges and thereupon the prosecution was directed to lead the evidence on its side to prove the allegations. As such the prosecution examined PW:1 and got marked Ex.P.1 and 2. On closure of the prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused, the statement of the accused u/sec.313 Cr.PC is dispensed with.
4. I have heard the arguments from both the sides .
5. The following points that arise for my consideration are:
1) Whether the prosecution
proves beyond all reasonable
doubt that on 27/12/2012 at
about 11.30 a.m. at New
BEL Road, within jurisdiction
of Sanjay Nagar P.S.,
accused has committed the
offences punishable
4
U/sec.448, 427, 504, 354,
324, 506 of IPC.?
2) What order?
6. My finding on the above points are held as under:
Point No.1 In the negative Point No.2 As per final order for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1:-
In order to bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has examined PW.1. PW.1 has turned hostile in toto to the case of the prosecution. PW.1, who being the complainant in her evidence has deposed that, she knows the accused and he has not trespassed into her beauty parlor, not broken glasses and caused any loss. PW.1 further deposed that, accused has not abused her in filthy language, not tried to outrage her modesty, not assaulted her with bottle and not put life threat. PW.1 further deposed that she 5 has not given complaint before the police as per Ex.P1 and police have not drawn mahazar as per Ex.P2.
8. Even in the cross-examination by learned Sr.APP, PW.1 has not supported the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination PW.1 has specifically denied for having given complaint and police have drawn mahazar. This being the evidence of PW.1, it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
9. Even though learned Sr.APP prayed for issuance of summons to other witnesses. As PW.1 being the material witness/victim has not supported the case of the prosecution, mere issuance of summons to other witnesses and examination of those witnesses would not serve the purpose of the prosecution and hence prayer of learned Sr.APP is rejected.
10. In the absence of cogent, corroborative and material evidence, it is not safe to come to conclusion that prosecution has proved the allegations against the accused 6 beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I answer point no.1 in the negative.
11. Point No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
7
ORDER Acting under Section-248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/sec.448, 427, 504, 354, 324, 506 of IPC.
Bail bond of accused and his surety bond stands cancelled. Seized property being worthless, ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court this the 13th day of October 2015.) (D. Puttaswamy) VIII Addl.C.M.M. Bengaluru.
Annexure:
1.List of Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution: P. Ws:
1. Nalini D.Harish.
2.List of Documents marked on behalf of the prosecution:- Ex.Ps:
1. Complaint
2. Mahazar.
3.List of Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:-
-NIL-8
4.List of witnesses and documents marked on behalf of the accused:- - NIL -
VIII Addl. C. M. M. Bangalore.